Approach could leave some Georgia residents without a viable broadband option.

Share this story

Incumbent broadband providers are pushing legislation that would restrict Georgia towns from building municipal broadband networks. Under the proposal, if a single home in a census tract has Internet access at speeds of 1.5Mbps or above, the town would be prohibited from offering broadband service to anyone in that tract.

Municipal broadband opponents tried and failed to ban towns from building broadband networks in Georgia last year. But their case wasn't helped when AT&T's CEO said in a conference call: "We’re looking at rural America and asking, what’s the broadband solution? We don’t have one right now."

The case for local control

The argument against municipal broadband networks is straightforward: in a free-market economy, private companies, not the government, should build broadband networks. That argument makes sense in areas with healthy broadband competition. There's no reason for the government to get involved if the private sector is already getting the job done.

But many towns, especially in rural areas, aren't in this happy position. Many have only one option—usually the local telephone company—for residential service. Speeds may be slow, and with no local competition the incumbent has little incentive to invest in upgrades.

A town in that position might logically decide that the only way to get a modern network is to finance it itself. In recent years, medium-sized towns such as Lafayette, LA and Chattanooga, TN have decided to do just that.

People disagree about how well those experiments are working out, with some observers lauding these projects and others criticizing them. But this seems like a case where the conservative principle of local control should carry the day. If taxpayers in a particular Georgia town want to spend their tax dollars on a fiber network, that should be a decision for their local elected representatives to make.

Banning muni fiber only in areas that already have some service is less draconian than banning municipal networks state-wide, but it could still leave residents of certain areas stranded without service. The threshold the bill sets as the minimum acceptable broadband speed, 1.5Mbps, is even lower than the 4Mbps level the FCC defines as the minimum broadband speed. And obviously, the fact that some people in a census tract have service doesn't mean that everyone does.

Moreover, limiting which parts of town a municipal fiber network can serve might make it impossible for that town to cost-effectively reach under-served sections with broadband service. It's often more cost-effective to deploy fiber to an entire town than to deploy fiber selectively to only certain parts of town. The neighborhoods being served by an incumbent are likely to be the wealthiest and densest parts of town. Banning towns from deploying fiber to those parts of town may make it impossible to cover the fixed costs of a municipal fiber project.

There continues to be real uncertainty about the best model of broadband deployment. Google and Gig U are pioneering (mostly) privately financed approaches. Lafayette, Chattanooga, and other cities are experimenting with publicly financed networks. We could use more examples of both models to help understand which approach works better in the long run. If municipal networks turn out to be a disaster, as critics predict they will, then other towns will learn from the early adopters' mistakes and steer clear of them. But we won't learn anything if state legislatures shut down the experiments before they start.

I tired of strong armed business tactics, it's one of the reason that internet access cost so much in this country as compared to other countries. With one or two providers in most area's there isn't any meaningful competition and on top of that you get these huge monolithic companies telling people they can't share their access.

"You can't build it! We have to build it, and you have to pay us! Except... we don't feel like building it right now. We'll get back to you on that. But until we do, don't you dare do a fucking thing about it."

Let municipalities and/or other levels of government build the infrastructure and then let ISPs compete to sell service to whomever is connected to that network while giving the municipalities/government a quote for each subscription to pay for and maintain the infrastructure.

Everybody would be happy!-the municipality would build a network that deserves everybody, ISPs would pay them back to use it;-all ISPs would be allowed to get onto the network and sell service to customers;

In the NC case, a legislator was bought and paid for by Time Warner to get this bill passed.

The case there boiled down to TWC saying "we don't have any plans to install/upgrade in that area at the moment, but we might in the future, so we want to lock the fact that nobody can compete with us there".

Any and all bills of this sort are horseshit and should be banned. It should be completely up to the munis to decide what is best for them.

Let municipalities and/or other levels of government build the infrastructure and then let ISPs compete to sell service to whomever is connected to that network while giving the municipalities/government a quote for each subscription to pay for and maintain the infrastructure.

Everybody would be happy!-the municipality would build a network that deserves everybody, ISPs would pay them back to use it;-all ISPs would be allowed to get onto the network and sell service to customers;

Exactly this^

I think we're getting to a point and time where we, as a nation, need to consider broadband internet service as part of our infrastructure, on the same lines (no pun intended) as electricity, sewer, etc. Many locations in SE Asia and parts of Europe have already adopted this to great advantage.

If taxpayers in a particular Georgia town want to spend their tax dollars on a fiber network, that should be a decision for their local elected representatives to make.

This. What better use of taxpayer dollars than providing an essential service to citizens when the market won't?

Isn't a better solution providing some kind of incentive to businesses to take over or replace a municipal broadband network, so the government can bow out when there's a market solution in place?

While I completely agree that if the taxpayers want to spend their money on the network it should be up to them, I find it hard to agree with your statement that a fiber network is "essential."

Is water service essential? I improves quality of live, but municipal water is not needed to sustain life or provide adequate sanitation.

Yes, water is an essential service, you can even say internet access is essential. Fiber networks are not essential, they are a luxury. No question my opinion will be downvoted out of existence, but I find it impossible to understand how people can think having fiber networks are essential when they are not available to most of the country.

It depends on how important you think competing technologically on a global scale is. Sure, it's a luxury at first but a better infrastructure provides incentive to younger generations to explore technology creatively.

If taxpayers in a particular Georgia town want to spend their tax dollars on a fiber network, that should be a decision for their local elected representatives to make.

This. What better use of taxpayer dollars than providing an essential service to citizens when the market won't?

Isn't a better solution providing some kind of incentive to businesses to take over or replace a municipal broadband network, so the government can bow out when there's a market solution in place?

While I completely agree that if the taxpayers want to spend their money on the network it should be up to them, I find it hard to agree with your statement that a fiber network is "essential."

Is water service essential? I improves quality of live, but municipal water is not needed to sustain life or provide adequate sanitation.

Yes, water is an essential service, you can even say internet access is essential. Fiber networks are not essential, they are a luxury. No question my opinion will be downvoted out of existence, but I find it impossible to understand how people can think having fiber networks are essential when they are not available to most of the country.

I think that you're spending far too much energy focusing on the word "FIBER". I'd contend that the OP merely was suggesting internet access or broadband are more generally to be considered an essential service akin to more plebeian utilities like water/electricity/trash in this day and age.

I think that you're spending far too much energy focusing on the word "FIBER". I'd contend that the OP merely was suggesting internet access or broadband are more generally to be considered an essential service akin to more plebeian utilities like water/electricity/trash in this day and age.

And I would totally agree with this statement (although water and trash are often handled through individual wells or private companies in many areas of the country), but my point was specifically about his calling out fiber. Like I said in the original post, I agree with the overall sentiment, just thought he took it too far.

It's pretty obvious to me, and everyone I can find to ask, regardless of political leanings, that Internet infrastructure should be a public utility. At this point it's like water or electrical service, expected to be there.

"There continues to be real uncertainty about the best model of broadband deployment."

No, actually, it's very straight forward. Have the local govt. drop a dumb pipe to every home. Allow telecos to use the pipes to deliver service to the end-user, and charge them a fee for doing so. You'd recoup the costs of building the fiber infrastructure through fees to the teleco, you'd create massive price war between ISPs, potentially create jobs by lowering the cost barrier of entering the ISP business, and the entire community wins, government and people.

The only losers are the Telecos that draw obscene profits from their ISP services. Forgive me if I don't shed any tears for them.

There is a very good reason utilities are regulated in most areas. When you have a product that requires massive investment to set up (in the case of broadband/Internet, building an infrastructure), but only nominal to medium costs to run the business and provide the service, this is a recipe for creating duopolies, monopolies, and no competition. ISPs are even better candidates for regulations a-la-utilities, because it's cheaper and cleaner to provide internet service than it is gas, electricity, or water.

If taxpayers in a particular Georgia town want to spend their tax dollars on a fiber network, that should be a decision for their local elected representatives to make.

This. What better use of taxpayer dollars than providing an essential service to citizens when the market won't?

Isn't a better solution providing some kind of incentive to businesses to take over or replace a municipal broadband network, so the government can bow out when there's a market solution in place?

While I completely agree that if the taxpayers want to spend their money on the network it should be up to them, I find it hard to agree with your statement that a fiber network is "essential."

Maybe it's not essential, but when the FCC defines minimum broadband at 4 Mbps and you are prohibited from building out a network if someone has only 1.5 Mbps, I think there's a difference. I wouldn't even say it has to be fiber, but anything better than dial-up should be considered the "norm" at this point.

I think that you're spending far too much energy focusing on the word "FIBER". I'd contend that the OP merely was suggesting internet access or broadband are more generally to be considered an essential service akin to more plebeian utilities like water/electricity/trash in this day and age.

And I would totally agree with this statement (although water and trash are often handled through individual wells or private companies in many areas of the country), but my point was specifically about his calling out fiber. Like I said in the original post, I agree with the overall sentiment, just thought he took it too far.

Fiber is more likely to be future proof than anything metal based.

And i suspect the limit of what one can use bandwidth for right now is more bureaucratic than technical. All manner of rules and regulations written for a age of papers and clerks.

Given that the UN declared the Internet a basic human right, the municipal government managing the basic infrastructure sounds like it would be the perfect solution. Especially if the market is refusing to provide.

How often are these municipalities sued not because they dared start a municipal ISP but because they signed an exclusivity contract with an ISP prior to the build out?

If an ISP was lured into a low margin area with an exclusivity contract then legally they have the grounds to turn around and sue when the municipality decides it isn't good enough and builds their own.

I'm pretty sure the exclusivity contracts you refer to are illegal so my guess is that the answer to your question is "never". Regardless, the situation you refer to is a contract dispute so in that case the company should sue the city. Passing a law that affects all municipalities would be unfair even if we supposed the answer to your question were "often".

Yes, water is an essential service, you can even say internet access is essential. Fiber networks are not essential, they are a luxury. No question my opinion will be downvoted out of existence, but I find it impossible to understand how people can think having fiber networks are essential when they are not available to most of the country.

While the author used the term fiber in the article, I think the real question he was after was "is BROADBAND an essential service?" Fiber is just the means to the end... the end is what's in question here. The only reason fiber was being used here is because currently it's the most cost effective solution to building out a broadband WAN.

If we assume that internet access is an essential service in today's age (which we could argue but let's just agree it is for the sake of argument) is broadband also an essential service? Using the water analogy we can agree that water is an essential service but how MUCH water? What rate of flow? What volume over what time do we accept as the bare minimum.

For the internet, is dial-up good enough? If cities can provide that basic level have we reached the threshold of providing access to an essential service? I certainly wouldn't want dial up.

And are Ars readers really competent to make that call? I'd be willing to bet every single post on this topic today comes via a broadband connection.

I for one do not want the government on any level to provide for, serve, monitor, or control in any way my internet services. I have no idea why they would have any interest in this at all considering they can't seem to manage schools, infrastructure, etc.

If a city wants to provide "free" internet then they should contract the available providers of that service. How is "Town A" going to provide a competitive product to the large or even medium sized service providers. What you get is low grade service anyway. And you can't complain if it's free. Unless your idea of a good time is calling the mayor when your service goes out.

It is ignorant to say that that internet access cost so much in this country as compared to other countries. I can sell you dial-up for pretty cheap. It's no secret that a new infrastructure is easier and cheaper to build that converting an old infrastructure. It's government regulation and taxes on your ip/telephony services that keep your prices so high, don't forget that.

I don't think anyone here is advocating for government provided internet. I think the major concern is providing the infrastructure, especially in more rural areas. The ISP's could then vie for the rights to sell service to those connected by the infrastructure.

Given that the UN declared the Internet a basic human right, the municipal government managing the basic infrastructure sounds like it would be the perfect solution. Especially if the market is refusing to provide.

The UN says and does a lot of things that are ridiculous.This is one of them.

Back on topic.The municipalities should be able to run whatever they want in a fair competition environment under 2 conditions:1 - the voters approve it2 - the municipality can afford it

If they can afford it, but the constituents don't want it, then don't implement it.If they can't afford it, then don't implement it.

I for one do not want the government on any level to provide for, serve, monitor, or control in any way my internet services. I have no idea why they would have any interest in this at all considering they can't seem to manage schools, infrastructure, etc.

If a city wants to provide "free" internet then they should contract the available providers of that service. How is "Town A" going to provide a competitive product to the large or even medium sized service providers. What you get is low grade service anyway. And you can't complain if it's free. Unless your idea of a good time is calling the mayor when your service goes out.

It is ignorant to say that that internet access cost so much in this country as compared to other countries. I can sell you dial-up for pretty cheap. It's no secret that a new infrastructure is easier and cheaper to build that converting an old infrastructure. It's government regulation and taxes on your ip/telephony services that keep your prices so high, don't forget that.

You clearly missed the entire point of this article. It's not about cities trying to provide free internet. It's about cities trying to provide internet in areas where the private firms won't. It's not as if the folks in these towns have a choice and are just bitching about the cost of access... they don't have broadband at all.

You say the city should just "contract with the available providers" when there are, in fact, no available providers. These cities are simply trying to fill that particular gap.

It depends on how important you think competing technologically on a global scale is. Sure, it's a luxury at first but a better infrastructure provides incentive to younger generations to explore technology creatively.

So every small town should have an airport capable of handling 747's because it improves infrastructure and provides and incentive to young people?

Nonsense.

Neither Internet access nor any sort of communications access is an inherent right. It's a very useful thing and governments need to be flexible and responsive to their constituents so I have no problem with a local government sponsoring broadband access. But it's not an inherent right nor is it necessary to compete. My small town of 8000 will never compete with New York, New Delhi, Bonn or even Spokane, Washington. Even if we had fiber to every fireplug in the town.

First, nice straw man with the 747's.

Second, Nobody is saying communication access is an inherent right. Access to city water isn't an inherent right either. It's a quality of life issue. If you improve the quality of life for the people, you increase your chances of prosperity.

Look at it this way: every great period of technological, industrial, or spiritual advancement across the history of civilization has come in conjunction with a time of great plenty for the people.

"The only losers are the Telecos that draw obscene profits from their ISP services"

Yes, this goes to pay employees. 258,000+ for AT&T and Verizon alone.

Here's the thing, no company is protected from competition, just because they 'employ some people' - thats the HSBC defence ("you can't punish us, because it'll hurt the system because we're so big").

U-verse was supposed to be rolled out here 5 years ago. It hasn't. I can have AT&Ts DSL service, or Verizon's 3G. Them's my choices, and they haven't changed, in ANY WAY over the last 6 years. Not in speed, not in price. I'm paying the exact same $45/month for 6/0.5 as I was in 2008. There is no competition. Reliability's gone in the toilet, and then there's the 6-strikes crap starting.

If taxpayers in a particular Georgia town want to spend their tax dollars on a fiber network, that should be a decision for their local elected representatives to make.

This. What better use of taxpayer dollars than providing an essential service to citizens when the market won't?

Isn't a better solution providing some kind of incentive to businesses to take over or replace a municipal broadband network, so the government can bow out when there's a market solution in place?

I see municipal broadband in the same category as toll roads. What are many states doing with their toll roads? They are allowing private sector companies to bid on contracts to manage and operate these roads and giving the states a cut of the profits. It's working pretty good. They can do the same with their broadband network.

Or better yet, allow ISP's to lease access to their networks to be able to offer service there. It would also be a nice way of enforcing a certain level of service on the ISP's who want to service these areas.